BSNs Cell Mass Claims to contain
3000 MG of "CME3" or creatine ethly ester malate.

An independant lab tested Cel Mass for potency and this is what they found:

First let me say this -
CEE is simply Creatine Monohydrate bound to an Ethyl Ester. 
In "CEM3" presumably there is also malic acid (malate). 

In order for the body to use the Creatine, it would have to separate off the malic acid and ethyl esters.  It is, as yet, uncertain what their fate is.

The lab reported that the
"Sample was found to contain 1,390 mg/serving of Creatine monohydrate." 

Though they did not say how much Ethyl alcohol and malic acid were found...these are not the functional constituents anyway...we must assume that they make up the other 1,610 mg...

You should know, all the forms of Creatine are always reduced to Creatine before either forming phosphocreatine in muscle, free Creatine in extracellular material, or being broken down.

Note:
Creatine monohydrate is highly bioavailable and most research showing creatine's value are done with CM.

A co-worker and I had this exact conversation. This is why I just go with regular Monohydrate.

what about Gaspari's SizeOn? do you know how much creatine is in that, Dan? because i really wanna try it with superpump 250, and i've heard a lot of good things about it. Thanks

I was trying to look into the difference between cee and cem. And apperently cem has a malic acid and cee hydrchloric acid. Because the full name is creatine ethyl ester hcl for cee.
 
What I was interested whether cem is safer. I read that the malic acid prevents it from breaking down into creatinine. And I think we all know the safety concerns with cee. That's probobly why higher dosages of cem then cee are required.

All the forms of Creatine are always reduced to Creatine before forming either
A) phosphocreatine in muscle,
B) free Creatine in extracellular material, or
C) being broken down to creatinine.

Or D) being recycled.

There is no value in having a special form of creatine.  Creatine Mono is highly bioavailable.

In CEE there is an ethyl ester or alcohol atached to the creatine Monohydrate...that ethyl ester has to be processed..

In CEM you take the CEE and add malic acid.  That is a starch that also has to be removed before the CM can be used.

...so you're saying stick to mono, right?

this just makes me think how ignorant i am to the supplements i'm taking.
do not know enough about them.

Thanks dan, I had heard these statesments before in another article but havnt been able to locate them since i heard it.

Yep. Mono works great. 
 
There are a few issues experienced by the few people who do not tolerate powders well ...who tend to cramp.  They should generally use lower doses and build up.
I know some people who used too much every dose and experience gut discomfort..even a loading dose (20 grams-about 4 teaspoons) can do this for some people.
There are a few people who have either a low % of type 2 muscle or a high amount of phosphocreatine in their system who feel they are "non-responders."
 
 
After 6 weeks off any Creatine product, If you journal your training, you notice changes in your recovery and training intensity.
Other than that, you don't actually "feel" anything from creatine...other than feeling bigger.
 
Ever wonder how much 2-8 pounds of water is?  Weigh it!  thats about how much extra you have in your muscle from the creatine.
Muscle IS roughly 75% water!  That means you have more muscle.
 
Then there are other interesting factors...but I will rant about those later

Perhaps one of the two reasons above... intolerance to dose or powders...or sensitivity to something?

Great post dan!
 
Personally, i only use a high grade Cr mono, i don't see any reason to use anything else. You're right in that the majority of scientifc research use monohydrate, in fact there is no scientifc study currently available that suggest that any of these 'designer creatine products' (CEM, CEE, pyruvate, gels etc etc) are any more effective than good old cheap monohydrate.
 
Its funny how people swear by these products, without actually understanding how cr works. But i suppose if it works for them, why not :)
 
wood.
 
 

Oh, i should also add that apart from anecdotal observstions there are no proven side effects from creatine monoydrate supplementation, apart from an increase in body mass, that is attributed to water retention. This could be deemed positive or negative depending on your goals.

I get the same thing as you deadly. I just cannot take creatine mono, but cellmass was great. (no sides+great gains)

In my read of the science, there are no CONSISTENT side effects.
 
There are all sorts of things that could be happening here and obviously there are people experiencing similar things.
 
I would love to do some clear research on why superstar, wolf, and others have the response that they do.
 
There is research discussing "non-responders" but, to my knowledge, not this.
 
Is it allergic reactions, does it have to do with high levels of Creatine breakdown and some metabolite from forming creatinine, is it low tolerance to CM (initially hydrophobic as a powder and so a clump of powder in the gut)...
 
Although it is not a high priority for researchers to find why it does not work because there does not appear to be any danger...I am still curious.
 
Last, I have to agree...if it works, why not :)

I just started loading creatine monohydrate (started last Wednesday actually). I'm really wondering how it could possibly be absorbed by my body when it doesn't even appear to be water soluble. Did somebody secretly replace my creatine with sand*? Also, is it true that citrus can reduce its effectiveness because of acidity? If that were the case, how would it last long in your stomach?

Also no effects of any kind good or bad to report, but I haven't been taking it long. I'm also a pretty big meatavore, so maybe I'm a low or non-responder. Also, I getting over a cold and I think dropping some retained water, so maybe that concealed any other new water weight...

Or Folgers Crystals?